When Deniers Deny Their Own

When Deniers Deny Their Own

Who can you trust, if not your own advisers? That is the inconvenient question raised by NYT reporter Andrew C. Revkin in a newly published article that reveals the extent to which the coal and oil industries ignored the advice of their own scientists on the question of climate change.

The Global Climate Coalition (how’s that for an Orwellian name?), an industry-funded group that spent years vehemently contesting any evidence linking anthropogenic activity to climate change, found itself in the uncomfortable position of rejecting its own experts’ recommendations when they reached the inevitable conclusion that the contribution of manmade greenhouse gas emissions to climate change “could not be refuted.”

That’s right: even the scientists that these companies had consistently trotted out to discredit the findings of the IPCC could no longer deny the truth when faced with the hard facts. They acknowledged as much in an internal report released in 1995 in which they stated unequivocably that: “The scientific basis for the Greenhouse Effect and the potential impact of human emissions of greenhouse gases such as CO2 on climate is well established and cannot be denied.”

The advisory committee that authored the 17-page report may have disagreed with the IPCC’s conclusion that anthropogenic activities were warming the climate, but that did not mean that it hewed to the skeptic line. Indeed, though it recognized that “the contrarian theories raise interesting questions about our total understanding of climate processes,” it dismissed them as unpersuasive at best – plainly stating that “they do not offer convincing arguments against the conventional model of greenhouse gas emission-induced climate change.”

When confronted with this frank assessment, the leadership of the Global Climate Coalition did the only reasonable thing: drop the offending passages and expunge the report’s existence from the public record. (What, you were expecting something else?) And, if that didn’t keep all the snooping reporters away, just play dumb – as William O’Keefe, the former head of the GCC, smartly demonstrates here:

“I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’”

So despite being proven wrong from the get-go, the GCC proceeded along its merry way, sowing confusion and dooming the government to protracted inaction. As George Monbiot astutely points out, Big Oil and Big Coal did not need to win the argument in order to win the debate: all they had to do was show up with a larger megaphone (and deeper pockets).

This again points to the utter failure of the mainstream media, which, in its overwrought efforts to give both “sides” of the argument a fair shake, legitimized the skeptics’ views and helped sow doubt. Or, as Attytood’s Will Bunch put it: “What’s disturbing (although, again, not all that surprising) is the role that supposed “journalistic ethics” played in spreading this Big Lie, by cluelessly giving these charlatans equal play with the established science on the issue.”

I haven’t seen this one on yet, is there someone who could help me find this online, along with advice on how to buy silver and or look for a affiliate marketing programs on how to check my credit rating today

the topic is indeed easy to understand. I am a [url=http://www.rent-car.net>rent a car delivery boy[/url] and i got it. But it can be complex if you look from more perspectives at it http://www.rent-car.net

The failure of the media, failure of leadership, duplicity of business leaders is beyond bad. As we begin to see the extent of the problem, it is not just the 8 years of Bush/Cheyney, it is the 10 and 20 years prior. Many, many people will be dying from climate change, and their little business tactic is tragic to optimize profits from carbon fuel is sinful.

Mind you, I do not think there is fundamental reason for crude oil to rally either, but because of exogenous forces in this market, it has rallied. Therefore, there is no immediate reason why it should regress.

I always wondered why they could not forcast the time with all devices having today. I asked a guy who works at a weather station said he would find them too stations overlap and many more http://paraorkut9.org/ teams could not handle all the data needed to predict. I wondered why I could not put all the data together and reach a point of view of time for years (if they had gathered enough from the past to make a full-circle pattern of time). Anyway, my hopes of the human race become what I thought I could become faded again. Thanks for the space.

As we begin to see the extent of the problem, it is not just the 8 years of Bush/Cheyney, it is the 10 and 20 years prior. Many, many people will be dying from climate change,Online social sciences degree and their little business tactic is tragic to optimize profits from carbon fuel is sinful.

They only hire scientists to prove their point, nothing more. And when facts don’t match what they want to hear, they ignore them. What they should do is use the money they make on fossil fuels and invest into renewable companies rather than fighting the truth that global warming is real.
—–
free classified ads |jobs classifieds |articles

“I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’”
link building services | blog commenting service

“I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’”
link building services | blog commenting service

How is this even still something to be discussed, I mean really? How can one not believe that humans, who find all kinds of new and interesting ways to destroy their environment (like the trash island) believe that global warming is some sort of natural thing when there is no dispute to the fact we pump our atmosphere with compounds directly related to global warming?

How can one not believe that humans, who find all kinds of new and interesting ways to destroy their environment believe that global warming is some sort of natural thing when there is no dispute to the fact we pump our atmosphere with compounds directly related to global warming?

“I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’”

“I have no idea why the section on the contrarians would have been deleted. One thing I’m absolutely certain of is that no member of the board of the Global Climate Coalition said, ‘We have to suppress this.’

The Global Climate Coalition did the only reasonable thing: drop the offending passages and expunge the report’s existence from the public record. And, if that didn’t keep all the snooping reporters away.

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.

Keep In Touch

The U.S. Department of the Interior this week announced new fracking regulations that will serve as the only federal rules enforcing any kind of safety measures on the controversial drilling technique when they go into effect in a few months.

The rules only apply to oil and gas wells on public lands, however, and most fracking is done on private or state-...